I'm confused. Ignoring the vampire is always evil thing for now(I accept the idea that a vampire can be non-evil, we have examples in actual books such as Jandar Sunstar), how can Malack be not evil based on his actions? D&D is pretty strict about alignment and killing an unwilling individual, even an evil one, and transforming them into a creature that requires draining life force counts as evil under the D&D alignment system. The books leave no questions at all about this. Creating sentient evil undead=evil act. Hell, creating non-sentient neutral undead is an evil act(Animate Dead has the evil descriptor). He's not out to make Belkar face punishment for his actions or try and redeem Tarquin. He wants another vampire companion and by Nergal he's going to have one, whether or not that person wants to be one. That is an evil act. An indisputably evil one. This is combined with him actively hunting down a party he knows is good aligned. Tarquin himself even admits that the crew is obviously trying to stop some greater evil if they can't even take time to try and stop his evil empire plan. Then we have the more circumstantial evidence. He's been helping Tarquin for decades in establishing their empires. He's not an unknowing patsy. He knows damn well what he's doing. The neutral part of the evil versus neutral went out the door when he knowingly contributed to the deaths of thousands to help Tarquin with his agenda. Malack is cultured and quite likeable. But he's clearly evil under the official rules of D&D and has shown no desire to redeem himself. Which is the big difference between him and V(who while admittedly committing an even greater act of evil, clearly feels remorse and is trying to redeem himself. Which is why he's not evil. He almost crossed that line. Hell for awhile(Kubota arc through Dragon arc) might have actually been Neutral Evil in alignment, but he's walking the long road back even if he's doing it rather messily at times).